Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16[edit]

Category:People from Ryazan Oblast[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each category Rathfelder (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Continuous pitch instruments[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OR. Most members do not mention that these instruments have a continuous pitch range. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • '''Keep'''. I notice the category pairs instruments that I never thought of together. Anything that can make one look at categorizing differently is useful. I haven't thought of describing instruments using this concept, but it should be useful to describe folk instruments that haven't any kind of stop, such as a fret. Hornbostel-Sachs isn't the only way to classify types.Jacqke (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be unusual for an article to say explicitly "X is a continuous pitch instrument"; from skimming the articles this tends to be implicit or otherwise trivially obvious. There are a few articles where it is entirely explicit, like in Fretless guitar (the position of the node of the string is continuously variable) or Theremin (the theremin's continuous pitch). But mostly it can be inferred implicitly. E.g. for string instruments, articles might say something like Violin family instruments [...] are not fretted (as in Violin family), which to me seems enough. It is implied less directly but still able to be inferred on other articles, like from reading the bits about how pitch is produced and controlled in Musical saw#Playing. But the solution for articles where this can't be inferred from the text would be to remove the category or alter the text, rather than deleting the whole category, no? Endwise (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since both keep voters seem to confirm that this is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- This is clear case of a notable characteristic, but one so obvious that articles will not explicitly refer to it. The converse is keyed instruments, which can only be played at a series of predetermined pitches. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Northern franchise railway stations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Align with all the other members of Category:Railway stations in Great Britain by train operating company. Franchise is also no longer technically correct, as franchising ceased to exist when the agreements were terminated in during the early days of the first COVID-19 lockdown and replaced by management contracts as described at Passenger rail franchising in Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraiptoune (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as the proposed name does not make sense with something missing, "owned by", "run by", "served by" or what? Keith D (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations

Category:People from Rostov Oblast[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each category Rathfelder (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soviet people of Belarusian descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Category:Soviet people of Belarusian descent

Category:Soviet people of Ukrainian descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Category:Soviet people of Ukrainian descent

Category:Soviet people of Russian descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Category:Soviet people of Russian descent

Category:Soviet people of Lithuanian descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Category:Soviet people of Lithuanian descent

Category:Soviet people of Armenian descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Category:Soviet people of Armenian descent

Category:Soviet people of Azerbaijani descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Category:Soviet people of Azerbaijani descent

People from caliphates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. bibliomaniac15 00:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent in this earlier discussion about empires. Presumably caliphates should be treated the same way as empires. Some subcategories already use "from", they have not been included in this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not support It seems incorrect. To use the word "From" indicate that these people were indeed from, for example, the Fatimid Caliphate, while in reality, they simply lived in the Fatimid Caliphate. In fact, almost all slaves were originally foreigners, and not from these places at all. So it will be factually incorrect to say that they were from these places. But to phrase it "of" simply mean that they lived in these places, not that they were from these places.--Aciram (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether we use "of" or "from", it both reflects people who lived in these places. However, with a number of occupations the usage of "of" is ambiguous, e.g. historians of country: are they studying the history of the country, or are they living in this country? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to agree that "from" indicate that these people lived in this country. It is true that "of" is ambigious, but that could be an advantage. "Of" state that the person were active and lived in the society in question, regardless if they were originally from this society. Normally, the usage of these categories is to find the people who lived in these societes: who formed and influenced them, by living in them. By using the word "from", we clearly state, that it is about people who were from these societes: they might live in another country, it might be a person who was born in the caliphate, but live their entire life in China, and thus in fact belonged to China rather than the Caliphate. While a slave, who was born in Denmark but lived their entire life in the Caliphate as a slave, woould in fact need to be categoriezed as from Denmark, because they were not from the Caliphate at all; they lived in the Caliphate their entire adult life, but they were not from the Caliphate, so it would be incorect to categorize them as from the Caliphate, when they are in fact from Denmark. So this name change is a bit unfortunate, and will confuse a lot of people, and result in it being harder to find people who belonged to certain societies, and influenced the societes they lived in, because the word focus on origin of birth, and not residence. --Aciram (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - per similar recent cfds. 'People from the UK' would certainly include people in the UK. Oculi (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are people ruled by these Caliphates: "under" might be a better preposition. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a misunderstanding: people were not ruled by caliphates but by caliphs. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whilst I support the need for standardization of categories, I also question the change to 'from'. Many people, in the medieval Islamic world just as the modern world, moved between states, and often entered these state from the notional 'outside': an Orthodox Christian Byzantine slave could become an Abbasid admiral; a pagan Slavic eunuch could become a Fatimid vizier; a pagan Turkic tribesman could go from an Abbasid soldier to found his own dynasty; a Nestorian Christian Iraqi bureaucrat might learn his trade at the Abbasid court and then move to half a dozen different courts; etc. etc. My understanding for these categories is that they contain people who were active in a particular state, not from it. And while I read the replies above that "from" can be read as "living in", it is, to my eyes, not the most immediate and natural reading. Hence I will oppose this move. Constantine ✍ 13:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: People of sultanates were recently renamed to people from sultanates, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 2#People from sultanates. If this set is not carried then that set should presumably be reopened. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That earlier CFD discussion had one participant besides the nominator who supported the nomination, not exactly a broad-based consensus. And this "Of vs. From" debate goes even deeper into other CFD discussions as well. Maybe this is worth an RFC to make a firm decision on language (unless that has already been done?) rather than having to have many, large CFD nomination discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per precedent. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Seasonal events by country in South Asia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Seasonal events by country in South Asia

Category:2021 ICC T20 World Cup[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The following edition 2022 was named correctly, this is the odd one naming 2021 ICC T20 World Cup different from the tournament main page name itself. Kirubar (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per article title 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. This was the first one to include "men's" in the tournament name, which is probably why the category was created at the old-style tournament name. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cricketers at the 2016 T20 World Cup[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only this page is categorised for Men's T20 World Cup, not created for previous editions. Moreover, 100+ players took part. Only 13 players categorised under this. This standalone & confusing category has to be deleted i.e. Gayle only played at 2016 T20 WC. Whether it may be expanded for all editions in future, until then. Kirubar (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to other editions of competition / add other players. We have similar categories for the 50-over World Cup, the T20 is now almost as prestigious. Spike 'em (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NONDEFINING. There is a men's T20 cricket world cup every 2-4 years, and so if we have them for every tournament, it would generate a huge number of pointless categories on biographical articles. The existence of categories for any other sports tournaments isn't an appropriate justification for this category existing, as per WP:OSE- the 50 over ones should probably be deleted too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this is probably more OSE in your eyes, but I think it is a useful comparison... As a very rough survey : football and hockey also have categories for appearing at that sport's World Cup, ice hockey and rugby (neither code) do not. Any Olympian seems to be categorised by the games the appear at (including the sports mentioned here). I'd say winnning a World tournament as a player is clearly defining (they will often be described to as such), but I can see that just appearing, particularly at an early stage is less clear. Spike 'em (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure playing in a specific T20 world cup is suitable enough for a category, T20 World Cup cricketers would be a better category, encompassing all T20 World Cups. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Principality of Iberia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Category:Principality of Iberia

Late modern period[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#Late modern period

Category:Northern Nigerian Publishing Company Limited Books[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT without enough other articles to populate it -- and even if it could be expanded enough to be keepable, it would have to be renamed. Bearcat (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_16&oldid=1123662674"